A: I wish your question had an easier answer. The farm bill has to be American special-interest politics at its worst.

As Stacy Finz has been reporting in the main news and business
sections of The Chronicle, the failure of the recent super-deficit
reduction plan also brought an end to a secret committee process for
writing a new farm bill. Now Congress must follow its usual legislative
procedures. The farm bill is again open for debate.

Advocacy is much in order. The farm bill is so enormous, covers so
many programs, costs so much money, and is so deeply irrational that no
one brain -- certainly not mine -- can make sense of the whole thing.

Overall, the farm bill must be seen as a means to protect the income of the largest and richest industrial producers of food.

It is all trees, no forest. The current bill, passed in 2008, is 663
pages of mind-numbing details about programs -- hundreds of them -- each
with its own constituency and lobbyists.

The farm bill was designed originally to protect farmers against
weather and other risks. But it grew piecemeal to include programs
dealing with matters such as conservation, forestry, biofuels, organic
production, and international food aid.

What, you might ask, is SNAP doing in the farm bill? Think: logrolling.

Members of Congress who represent farm states need urban votes to
pass subsidies. Urban members need farm votes to protect SNAP. This deal
works, and both sides like the unsavory system just as it is.

As for irrationality: At a time when preventing obesity heads the
public health agenda and reducing greenhouse gases is an international
priority, the farm bill firmly protects the status quo.

It promotes production of commodities, but does little to link
agricultural policy to policies that promote health or environmental
protection. Although the Dietary Guidelines and MyPlate strongly promote
consumption of fruits and vegetables, the farm bill inconsistently
considers these foods as horticulture or specialty crops that do not
merit subsidies or government-supported insurance. Indeed, many farm
bill provisions discourage production of fruits and vegetables.

Overall, the farm bill must be seen as an inequitable means to
protect the income of the largest and richest industrial producers of
food commodities. It has little to do with serious efforts to protect
conservation of natural resources, support rural communities, or promote
sustainable farming practices that maintain soil quality and mitigate
climate change. Nor does it address the real needs of low-income
communities.

The current bill favors large farms over small ones, intensive rather
than sustainable production methods, and some states and regions over
others. It actively promotes risk-taking; the government covers the
costs.

It ignores food safety. It promotes production of inefficient
biofuels. It does nothing to promote sustainable farming practices in
this or any other country. And because it rewards farmers for
overproducing commodities, it gets the United States in trouble with
international trading partners.

Worst of all, the bill is inherently undemocratic. It is so opaque
that nobody in Congress or anywhere else can possibly grasp its
entirety. Its size and complexity make it especially vulnerable to
influence by lobbyists for special interests and by the corporations
most generous with campaign contributions.

PRO AND CON ARGUMENTS

Its defenders argue that the present system works pretty well in
ensuring productivity, global competitiveness, and food security.
Tinkering with it, they claim, will not make much difference and could
do harm.

I disagree. It needs more than tinkering. Americans need farm policy
to be brought into line with health and climate-change policy, and now
is our chance.

Those of us who believe that food systems should be healthier for
people and the planet have been handed an opportunity to rethink farm
bill programs and to make the processes for its development more
democratic.